https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187687
Bug ID: 2187687 Summary: Review Request: rust-pyproject-toml - Pyproject.toml parser in Rust Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: decathorpe@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-pyproject-toml.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-pyproject-toml-0.5.1-1.fc38.src.rpm
Description: Pyproject.toml parser in Rust.
Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187687 Bug 2187687 depends on bug 2187677, which changed state.
Bug 2187677 Summary: Review Request: rust-pep440_rs - Library for python version numbers and specifiers, implementing PEP 440 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187677
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187687 Bug 2187687 depends on bug 2187682, which changed state.
Bug 2187682 Summary: Review Request: rust-pep508_rs - Library for python dependency specifiers, better known as PEP 508 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187682
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187687
Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |gui1ty@penguinpee.nl Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |gui1ty@penguinpee.nl Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- I might as well take this one.
Issues/Questions ================
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
=> 0.5.2 was released 3 days ago
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- pyproject-toml-devel , rust-pyproject-toml+default-devel
=> As discussed this is a false alarm by fedora-review
[?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
=> Just a warning about no documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187687
--- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Good catch, updated to v0.5.2.
Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-pyproject-toml.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-pyproject-toml-0.5.2-1.fc38.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187687
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://crates.io/crates/py | |project-toml
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5845547 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187687
Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- LGTM --> APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187687
--- Comment #6 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187687
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-pyproject-toml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187687
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2023-04-25 15:22:27
--- Comment #8 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Imported and built: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c37a399b43
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com